Tomar v Khatri
[2025] NZCA 428
•27 August 2025 at 11 am
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA
CA778/2024
[2025] NZCA 428
BETWEEN VIN TOMAR Applicant AND MONIKA KHATRI Respondent
| Court: | Courtney and Mallon JJ |
| Counsel: | Applicant in person |
| Respondent in person | |
| Judgment: | 27 August 2025 at 11 am |
| (On the papers) |
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
The application for a stay of proceedings is declined.
REASONS OF THE COURT
(Given by Courtney J)
[1] Mr Tomar was adjudicated bankrupt on 30 November 2023.
Associate Judge Taylor declined his application for annulment of the
adjudication order (the annulment decision).[1] Mr Tomar has appealed that decision.
He has paid security for costs. However, he does not want the appeal to be set down
for hearing until his appeal in CA777/2023[2] and his recent fresh application for
annulment made in the High Court have been determined.
[1] Khatri v Tomar [2024] NZHC 3217.
[2] An appeal against Downs J’s decision in Khatri v Tomar [2021] NZHC 3091. The appeal was
Following the Registry’s indication that the appeal was to be set down,
Mr Tomar has applied for a stay of proceedings. The application for stay is made
“under the inherent powers of the Court to ensure fairness and procedural efficiency”.
The stated grounds are that:
(a) The appeal record in this appeal (CA778/2024) is now moot due to a ruling of this Court on 5 June 2025 and the developments in the
High Court: “The judgments underpinning this appeal have been
declared moot, and continuing with this appeal would create
unnecessary duplication and procedural inefficiency.”
(b) A fresh annulment application has been made in the High Court and a stay of the present proceeding is necessary to prevent the duplication of
proceedings.
(c) Continuing with this appeal would be a waste of judicial resources as the new annulment application in the High Court is unopposed and is
in the process of being resolved.
(d) Because the new annulment application in the High Court is unopposed, the legal circumstances surrounding the bankruptcy order
have changed and it is no longer appropriate for this Court to continue
with the appeal.
(e) The direction that the appeal be set down for hearing is premature.
The respondent, Ms Khatri, opposes the stay. She contends that the appeal is
vexatious and she seeks finality.
We do not accept Mr Tomar’s assertion regarding the effect of our decision of
5 June 2025.[3] In that decision we determined applications by Mr Tomar for: leave to
appeal a decision declining to halt the bankruptcy proceedings (the halt decision);[4] a stay of the halt decision; and a stay of the annulment decision. All three applications
were declined.
[3] Tomar v Khatri [2025] NZCA 218.
[4] Khatri v Tomar [2023] NZHC 3240.
The application for stay of the annulment decision was declined because: not
granting a stay would not render the appeal against it nugatory; Mr Tomar’s bona fides
were in doubt; no novel or important question arose and there was no public interest;
and the apparent strength of the appeal was low.[5] Mr Tomar’s current appeal has not
been affected by this decision and it provides no reason that the appeal should not
proceed.
[5] Tomar v Khatri, above n 3, at [17]–[20].
Nor is there is any reason to delay determination of the appeal pending the
outcome of the appeal in CA777/2023. That appeal concerns the validity of an order
made against Mr Tomar under s 166 of the Senior Courts Act 2016. Whether that
appeal is successful or not cannot affect the current appeal.
Nor can the fact that a fresh annulment application has been made affect the
current appeal. Mr Tomar says that the new application is unopposed and creates
duplication with the current appeal. We have little information about the new
annulment application but observe that if it does, genuinely, create duplication, then it
is unlikely to succeed, since the issues will already have been determined in the
decision that is the subject of the current appeal.
Finally, we consider Mr Tomar’s assertion that the new annulment application
is unopposed seriously overstates the position. Ms Khatri has filed a memorandum in
the High Court in relation to the new annulment application in which she makes it
clear that, although she does not intend to participate in the proceeding, she does not
consent to the order sought. To the contrary, Ms Khatri says that the application is
vexatious and malicious and filed with the intention of harassing her. We note that
this complaint is made against Mr Tomar’s history of making applications against
Ms Khatri that lack any merit whatsoever.
[9] It is for this Court to dispose of appeals filed in a way that is as efficient as possible but which also recognises the interests of the parties concerned. In this case, we cannot see that Mr Tomar will be adversely affected by setting the appeal down for
hearing. Conversely, however, we consider that staying the appeal will adversely
affect Ms Khatri. If Mr Tomar considers that the appeal should not proceed, he is free
to abandon it. While the appeal is extant, however, it will be disposed of in the usual
way.
The application for a stay of proceedings is declined.
heard on 15 July 2025 and is reserved.
TOMAR v KHATRI [2025] NZCA 428 [27 August 2025]
0
0
0